Talk:Capricorn One/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bad wording

"Capricorn One was a fictional movie about a space landing hoax. " -- what, it's a film that never existed? -- Tarquin 19:02 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting fiction...

I remember watching Capricorn One as a child when it came out on TV. I enjoyed the movie, but it stuck out in my mind as a symbol of how ridiculously impossible it would have been for NASA to fake the moon landings.

I love this film, but there are a couple of possible flaws that stick in my mind. (1) Would it have been possible to guide the rocket unmanned so it splashed down at exactly the same time and place as it would've done had it been manned? (2) Would NASA's equipment have been sophisticated enough to tell whether a signal was coming from 300 miles away or closer? 300 miles is only about 0.0016 light seconds. Martyn Smith 10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

a) Sure - most capsules are essentially just ballistic. Fire the retrorockets at the right point, and ride the pre-plotted path down. Not much flying involved.

b) For a cheap Mars flight you'd want a Hohmann transfer, which would be... uh, by my reckoning, on arrival about point seven five AU from Earth; an AU is eight minutes one way, so for a mid-flight guess let's say about five to ten minutes round-trip delay. It'd be noticeable just from response lag by a few weeks into the flight even without equipment to check it - remember the last time you spoke to the other side of the world on a phone? You can notice the delay lag even then, and that's just going to geostationary and back... Shimgray | talk | 13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Apollo and Soyuz fly/flew a lifting re-entry controlled by the on-board computer. So it would be irrelevant whether there were people on board. It's only the very earliest capsules that flew ballistic re-entry (or Soyuz when the computer screws up). Mark Grant 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

True, though from the point of view of the occupant dumb-ballistic and automatically-controlled-lifting are much the same (except you can breathe easier in the latter). Thinking about it, Apollo did have some manually-operated parts of the descent sequence - it's what almost wrecked the ASTP landing - but nothing that couldn't be automated easily enough (and was automated, on early unmanned flights) Shimgray | talk | 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the difference between 20g and 6g (or thereabouts) is pretty significant, not to mention the difference between 'land where you hit' and 'land where you aim'. Also, there's nothing in the re-entry that had to be manually controlled -- remember, they flew entirely unmanned Apollo missions to test the spacecraft before they flew manned missions -- about the only thing that absolutely required a human on board for an Apollo mission was docking with the Lunar Module in the SIVB stage, or dealing with problems that couldn't be fixed on the ground. The latter is really the biggest technical problem with the faked mission in the movie: it's incredibly unlikely that an Apollo-based spacecraft could get to Mars and back without some kind of problem that would require human interaction. Mark Grant 23:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Capricorn One never works as well as a similar film, The Parallax View, because C.O. never brings up the "800 pound gorilla/bear in the room". Wouldn't the Russians/Soviets have exposed the cover-up right from the get-go? After all, if the technician could have figured out where the signals were really coming from, wouldn't the Russians have been able to trace them as well. For the record, the Russians landed an unmanned spacecraft on the Moon around the same time as Apollo 11, so no it's not really possible to fake a Moon/Mars landing and get away with it. The USA is not the only country in outer space, even though Capricorn One acted as though it was.204.80.61.110 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Bennett Turk

"movie magic"

Is this the only film where someone is trying to kill OJ Simpson?

Anyhow, Hal Holbrook's character clearly says that the memorial service at the end of the film is "right here in Houston", and not at all in Arlington. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.55.71.154 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

hollywood oversight

I wonder if the lack of delay in communication is an actual oversight or if it's a concious choice of the director, who probably has to compromise between "reality" and "drama". I mean, the theme of movies seems to be Entertainment is always greater than Science. Besides, if they made all movies "realistic" then us nerds wouldn't have anything to guffaw about! 64.173.240.130 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I need some hot stuff baby tonight

I don't suppose we'll ever know, unless it is marked in the script, but was it the intention of the baddies to burn up the capsule? The NASA authorities seemed relatively reasonable and sympathetic up to that point (Hal Holbrook gives a passionate speech about his commitment to the space programme). On a tangent, do we ever see the whole of the trans-Martian command module from the outside? -Ashley Pomeroy 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the burning up of the capsule never seemed to be intentional. Although it could be interpreted the other way, too. It was probably meant to be ambiguous. We, as the viewer, also really do not get to see the Capricorn Command Module. There is some scenes taking place before the launch that show the Command Module, but it is covered by the Boost Protective Cover. They also only use stock footage for the pre-launch and launch scenes of the Saturn V. Although, on the set where the landing was faked, there is a mock-up Command Module that was used for faking some of the TV transmissions. Other than that, there is no footage in the film that shows the real spacecraft in flight aside from the launch. Andy120290 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it as going either way. On the one hand, the hoax team had spent the time and money for a mock-up reentry capsule, and Kelloway appeared somewhat surprised when the heat shield failed. On the other hand, the astronauts were seen as a liability to the hoax cause, especially Brubaker who was on the verge of divulging the whole thing, so the "powerful forces" above Kelloway could have decided ahead of time to get rid of them, maybe without even informing Kelloway. And a third (less likely) possibility is that the reentry burn-up was simply a failure of the real capsule, which the bad guys used as an excuse to kill the astronauts. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The film went out of the way to reveal that the astronauts had a problem with the cover-up, especially Brubaker. I think Kelloway knew that in persuit of the objective of faking a Mars landing, the astronauts were considered expendable. Once the landing had been faked, the astronauts were as good as dead; the "powerful forces" wanted to wrap up those loose ends immediately. Xin Jing (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Having rewatched the film I'm convinced that the reentry accident was just that, an accident. What follows is, of course, original research.

• It is a surprise to everyone; no one on the screen appears to have known about it in advance. Kelloway is clearly startled when the alarms start going off. The congressman (my guess is he was in on the fakery, but it's never explicitly stated either way; perhaps it is in the novelizations) doesn't seem to have expected it, either.

Actually, he looks rather calm; grim yet reserved. Most of the scenes in the control room during the heat sield seperation show the overly exaggerated displays so the audience can understand what is taking place. I don't interpret Kelloway's expression or reaction to the failure of the heat shield as startled or indicating that it was unexpected. I think this goes a long way to extend the suspense as to whether or not the loss of the capsule was an accident or intentional. Kelloway always knew the loss of the astronauts was a possibility. He was their trusted friend, that's why he was selected to help convince them to cooperate. Kelloway is a great middle-man. He's believeably calm during the helicopter hunt sequences, he can face Kay Brubaker (Brenda Vaccaro) to console her after her husband's (supposed) death, and why he can play the straight-faced middle-man during the press announcement. Xin Jing (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• The airplane carrying the astronauts leaves the base to the planned landing site in the ocean and only turns around midair. If the conspirators always planned to kill them, why not shoot the astronauts at the base? Why bother with the abortive airplane flight?

• A failed flight is a failed flight whether the failure occurs on the way to Mars or on the way back. NASA needed the astronauts alive and well for its plan to completely work.

I think you're confusing NASA with the "powerful forces" that orchestrated the cover-up. Xin Jing (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• The strongest evidence that Kelloway didn't know about the accident ahead of time is the press conference. When he is asked whether the manned space program will end, Kelloway responds that he doesn't know. If the accident were planned he'd surely have had a response prepared about how NASA must continue despite the tragedy, given that continuing manned flights is the whole point of faking the Mars mission in the first place. YLee (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Kelloway also responded similarly during his conversation with the astrunauts, telling them they "have to help". Brubaker challenged "and what if we say no?", prompting Kelloway to reply, "I don't know. Don't say no.". It's the same dialogue mechanic that Kelloway delivered during the press conference reinforcing his role as a messanger and not a decision-maker. Kelloway made his role clear earlier in the film when he revealed that the real decisions were made by "powerful forces" who "have a lot to lose". I think he always knew about the possibility of the loss of the astronauts. Xin Jing (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Remake rumour

I've removed the mention of a remake in the lead as there are no reliable sources to support it. There are a few gossipy sits in the EL section, but nothing reliable. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice?

I saw a bit of this on TV a few years ago, and noticed in the scene where the ship crashes and the captain is handing out weapons, he starts to hand OJ the knife, thinks twice, and hands him a different weapon. In light of the famous OJ trial, I thought that was funny. Or perhaps because of the OJ trial, I mis-remember the scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.3 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite right

". Meanwhile back at the abandoned military base, the astronauts begin to suspect that if the conspiracy is to be successful, they will eventually have to be eliminated."

That's not how the film was. The three astronauts were told that they would be put into an empty capsule after it seemingly splashes down off course, so it would take the carrier recovery ship some time to get there. It wasn't until after there was a particular part of filming that Brubaker suspected that there was an accident (the heat shield seperation), and that they would then have to be eliminated Douglasnicol (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This was a really good movie and now its ruined because OJ Simpson is in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.27.60 (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

British Novelization Cover

I recently stumbled across a copy of British novelization. I have scanned the cover. Am unsure if Fair Use applies. If approved I'll add this to the article proper Graham1973 (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Capricorn One.jpg.

Added Complete Cast

On March 2, 2010, I updated the Cast section to include the complete cast of the film and their starring roles. Xin Jing (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Black Helicopters

The synopsis mentions the two Hughes 500 helicopters as 'Black Helicopters'. They aren't, they're more like an Olive Green. It depends on the light. It's most obvious from Walkers point of view (OJ Simpson) when he is caught in the river bed, and when they're sitting at the top of the cliff face. Douglasnicol (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Implication or direct threat

OK, so Ylee and I have some disagreement about whether Kelloway "implies" a threat to the astronaut's families or if he directly threatens them. Here's the dialog in question, taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2rSz6gLPN4:

Brubaker: What about our families?

Kelloway: They're flying back from the cape to Houston. They're all together on the plane.

Brubaker: No, you're not serious

Kelloway: Bru, don't make me.

Brubaker: You son of a bitch, tell me!

Kelloway: They're on the plane, together, goddamit, you want it in writing? There's a
device, it's on the plane too. There's some people. If I don't give them the all clear
signal they'll explode it.

To me that dialog leaves nothing to the imagination. The astronauts agree to cooperate or their families will die. Opinions? SnappingTurtle (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the clip; you were right and I was wrong. I've updated the article accordingly. YLee (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not used to such maturity online. I hardly know how to respond. Thank you! SnappingTurtle (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)